'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Kenny'sID]

What question? It doesn't matter actually, as there are no questions to be answered.

Lovely.

 

[KCfromNC]

The very first sentence in that article:

Although the general public is disconcertingly unaware of it, it is a fact that scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a conscious creative force

The funny part is, this is just as true :

"Although the general public is disconcertingly unaware of it, it is a fact that religious leaders do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through a guided naturalistic process with the intervention of a conscious creative force"

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Although the general public is disconcertingly unaware of it, it is a fact that scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a conscious creative force."

Now, the matter remains unsettled, but if we are looking for something on the order of 'slightest clue', I think we must include scientific hypotheses. There is no lack of them. There are far more than a dozen. So this fact [emphasis in original] is a lie.

Not sure I'd agree or disagree. And pretty much any other comment I'd a had on that was made in my last post.

 

[Nithavela]

OK, thanks, Nith.

It's not enough for you, and I get that, but that doesn't mean it's a "logical fallacy, and I know you didn't call it that but fact it its at the very least a logical possibility, and so much so, many feel it's logical enough they are happy with calling it fact.

Believe what you believe but constantly throwing the F word at it doesn't make it that. That's not necessarily directed at you, I just figure it would be wasted if I directed it at the source....too far gone.

Nothing new? No it isn't, but it is a reminder with all the goings on here and constantly trying to put creation down, others don't have a better explanation. And maybe I'm bias but I really believe if I had never been exposed to either side of this from the time I was born and was presented the two possibilities then had to choose one or the other, I'd have to choose intelligent design, just makes a lot more logical sense. And again, I know you disagree but that doesn't mean you are right, and until you guys can do better, I guess I just don't see the point of coming here messing with our God, or our beliefs?

What?

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Although the general public is disconcertingly unaware of it, it is a fact that religious leaders do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through a guided naturalistic process with the intervention of a conscious creative force"

I create, you create, we all create, we have all seen that happen = slight clue it was created.

Nothing just comes out of nowhere, I haven't seen it, you haven't seen, none of us have seen it = complete lack of logic as reason it's all here.

That observation is backed with more than the slightest clue/evidence....it's good hard logical fact that I should not even have to explain.

 

[Nithavela]

I create, you create, we all create, we have all seen that happen = slight clue it was created.

Nothing just comes out of nowhere, I haven't seen it, you haven't seen, none of us have seen it = complete lack of logic as reason it's all here.

That observation is backed with more than the slightest clue/evidence....it's good hard logical fact that I should not even have to explain.

Do you think that the flu comes from sun spots?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What?

Guess I gave you too much credit. LOL.

 

[KCfromNC]

I create, you create, we all create, we have all seen that happen = slight clue it was created.

You missed the word "how" in the quote. Knowing something was created isn't the same as knowing how it was created. Not to mention the obvious bigger problem : having faith that god(s) did it is a far cry from knowing anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of those things are evidence for God.

QEDing the OP?

 

[AV1611VET]

It might help to have a little historical background:

tl;dr

 

[Kenny'sID]

You missed the word "how" in the quote. Knowing something was created isn't the same as knowing how it was created. Not to mention the obvious bigger problem : having faith that god(s) did it is a far cry from knowing anything.

No, you missed the word "clue".

 

[Picky Picky]

Yes. I detailed them, with quotes, in the post just before the one you are replying to. I guess you missed that one.



Or... perhaps some of you are entirely to dependent on using logical fallacies, which then results in us having to point it out every time?



I explained how it does.



What question? It doesn't matter actually, as there are no questions to be answered.

The article and OP are implying that "not ignoring science" leads to "theism". And the argument for that claim is presented in said article.

But that argument is infested with one logical fallacy after the other.
If your argument is bunk, your conclusion will also be bunk.

I don't need to answer anything. I only need to point out the fallacies. Which is what I did.

Actually the suggestion that if one's argument is bunk one's conclusion will also be bunk ... is a logical fallacy. Thus:

If Ireland were an island, it would be replete with leprechauns.
Ireland is replete with leprechauns
Conclusion: Ireland is an island.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually the suggestion that if one's argument is bunk one's conclusion will also be bunk ... is a logical fallacy. Thus:

If Ireland were an island, it would be replete with leprechauns.
Ireland is replete with leprechauns
Conclusion: Ireland is an island.

Lol, okay, you got me there...

I was referencing the idea of GIGO off course: garbage in, garbage out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lovely.

So, you're just going to ignore everything else I mentioned in that post as well as previous posts, are you?

 

[Picky Picky]

Lol, okay, you got me there...

I was referencing the idea of GIGO off course: garbage in, garbage out.

Yep.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So, you're just going to ignore everything else I mentioned in that post as well as previous posts, are you?

Yes, just as you ignored my question.

Fair enough?

Don't feel too bad, I'm ignoring "what?" guy too. Guess I'm just not in the mood for it all today, but maybe you'll hit on something of interest.

 

[JackRT]

tl;dr

Translation please?

 

[AV1611VET]

Translation please?

too long; didn't read

 

[JackRT]

too long; didn't read

That's par.

 

[Oafman]

it is a reminder with all the goings on here and constantly trying to put creation down, others don't have a better explanation.

They do. There are a number of hypotheses about the origin of life which are being studied and tested. Not a single one of them requires the laws of nature to be suspended. All of them work within the parameters of the natural world, which we can observe and test. So they are quite clearly 'better' than an explanation which requires changes to the fundamental laws of nature.

Nothing just comes out of nowhere

Which of the hypotheses for the origin of life requires 'nothing to come out of nowhere'?